Philosophy Now Forum

A multiverse is the only explanation for why our universe is so perfectly suited for life that does not require a God.
It also makes since that before there was anything, (even laws of nature) everything was allowed. This explains how something came from nothing. And whyeverything that can happen happened.

.



The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of infinite or finite possible universes (including the Universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them. The various universes within the multiverse are also called "parallel universes" or "alternate universes".





.

Have I discovered the TOE (theory of everything )!?
Since bobevenson revolutionized economics. And Obvious Leo revolutionized physics. Can I make it a trilogy of Nobel Prize winners from philosophy now?

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.



The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of infinite or finite possible universes (including the Universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them. The various universes within the multiverse are also called "parallel universes" or "alternate universes".





.

Agreed! Thanks for educating those that may not be familiar with the term.

There is no multiverse, and, the 'reason' life thrives (at least here) is dumb luck.

raw_thought wrote:A multiverse is the only explanation for why our universe is so perfectly suited for life that does not require a God.
It also makes since that before there was anything, (even laws of nature) everything was allowed. This explains how something came from nothing. And whyeverything that can happen happened.

The idea of a multiverse suggests that all possibilities exist in some universe.
If the multiverse is true then there has to be a version of the universe where god created it.

henry quirk wrote:There is no multiverse, and, the 'reason' life thrives (at least here) is dumb luck.

If not for the multiverse it is beyond dumb luck.,its trillions to one against life.
However, with the multiverse, it is likely that at least one universe will have life.
If I throw a coin 100 times it is very unlikely that I will get 100 heads in a row. However, if I throw that coin 100 billion times it is likely that at some point I will have thrown 100 heads in a row.

Perhaps there could be the the unseeing-ahead-of-time brute force 'method' (a kind of forced default) of traversing all the paths of a superposition (such as electron are said to do in photosynthesis, reaching 95% efficiency), due to the necessarily no beginning of Totality (no specific direction can be imparted), the good results of which are the guaranteed to be found, rather than missing them by the impossible task of foreseeing every contingency.

We'd have to show the Everything superposition being there though, since it could also be that there is only one possible monad forced as the basis of all, all of these monads progressing from simplicity to complexity over time as we can see in nature.

So, there seem t be two ways to form our verse from paragraphs from sentences from phrases from words from phonemes and letters.

Raw,

The unlikeliness of a thing, or the improbability of a thing, is not synonymous with the impossibility of a thing.

Life exists; evidence of 'multiverse' does not.

*shrug*

henry quirk wrote:Raw,

The unlikeliness of a thing, or the improbability of a thing, is not synonymous with the impossibility of a thing.

Life exists; evidence of 'multiverse' does not.

*shrug*

HQ,

Scientists are now saying that experiments can be run to test the hypothesis of a multiverse.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

henry quirk wrote:Raw,

The unlikeliness of a thing, or the improbability of a thing, is not synonymous with the impossibility of a thing.

Life exists; evidence of 'multiverse' does not.

*shrug*

HQ,

Scientists are now saying that experiments can be run to test the hypothesis of a multiverse.

PhilX

Sadly, it turns out that in THIS particular universe the concept of the multiverse is false. In other universes there is no such concept and in others it has been proved to be true. In yet other universes there are pink elephants and flying pigs. But I've never been to either of those - I have to rely on hearsay.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

henry quirk wrote:Raw,

The unlikeliness of a thing, or the improbability of a thing, is not synonymous with the impossibility of a thing.

Life exists; evidence of 'multiverse' does not.

*shrug*

HQ,

Scientists are now saying that experiments can be run to test the hypothesis of a multiverse.

PhilX

Sadly, it turns out that in THIS particular universe the concept of the multiverse is false. In other universes there is no such concept and in others it has been proved to be true. In yet other universes there are pink elephants and flying pigs. But I've never been to either of those - I have to rely on hearsay.

For you there is no proof.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
HQ,

Scientists are now saying that experiments can be run to test the hypothesis of a multiverse.

PhilX

Sadly, it turns out that in THIS particular universe the concept of the multiverse is false. In other universes there is no such concept and in others it has been proved to be true. In yet other universes there are pink elephants and flying pigs. But I've never been to either of those - I have to rely on hearsay.

For you there is no proof.

PhilX

For YOU there is your fantasy world of your own making.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
For YOU there is your fantasy world of your own making.

Are you looking at that mirror again, brain hobbled?

PhilX

The existence or non-existence of universes external to the one we inhabit is not a legitimate question for either scientific or philosophical enquiry because by definition no evidence for or against the proposition is possible, even in principle.

The Goldilocks argument is simply dodgy logic. Our universe is suitable for life because it has life in it and for no other reason. Attempting to derive meaning from a counterfactual event is beneath the purview of any philosopher worthy of the name.